(My ramblings on Islam vs.
terrorism - this article, with bad English grammars, I sent to the White House,
the Bushies)

ă
FARITHAL B SAHARI 10
2002

"There is enough light for one who wants to see" Imam Ali

Terrorism
….

does
not, never, exist in Islam.

Islam…

promotes
peace, tolerance, and understanding.

Even
in war Islam shows its gentle nature. As instructed by the Prophet,

"Do
not kill a decrepit old man, a young infant, a child, or a woman; do not be
dishonest about booty, but collect your spoils, do right and act well, for Allah
loves those who do well"

Throughout
history, Islam is a religion most dynamic, most tolerant. Spread not through
sword, but through the divine value it emits. This fact was even recognized by
Gandhi in his writing to Young India,

"I
became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place in
Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the
utter self- affacement of the Prophet, the scrupulous regard for his pledges,
his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his
fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and his own mission. These and not the
sword carried everything before them and surmounted every trouble."

Islam
spreads by noble ways. The methods as said by Imam Ali k.r.w. are:

"Silence
will create respect and dignity;

justice
and fairplay will bring more friends;

benevolence
and charity will enhance prestige and position;

courtesy
will draw benevolence;

service
of mankind will secure leadership and good words will overcome powerful
enemies"

Lets
us substantiate the claims that Islam truly a peaceful and tolerant religion
with the following factual, historical reports…

1.
UMAR ABD AZIZ.

Immediately
after Umar ibn Abdul Aziz was elected Khalifah (caliph) in 717 A.D., a
delegation of men from Samarqand (Uzbakistan) saw him and represented that the
general of the Islamic armies, Qutaibah, had unjustifiably stationed his army
men in the town in their midst. Khalifah Umar ibn Abdul Aziz wrote to the
governor of Samarqand that he should appoint a tribunal to judge and settle the
dispute between Qutaibah and the people of Samarqand. If the judgement of the
tribunal goes against the army chief and his men are asked to vacate they must
do so at once. The governor appointed Jami’ ibn Hadhir Albaji as judge for
enquiry. After the enquiry was over, he, though himself a Muslim, passed the
judgement that the Muslim army must vacate the town. He also remarked that the
commander of the Muslim forces ought to have served an ultimatum of war to the
city, and according to the Islamic Law relating to war, he ought have canceled
all the treaties with them so that the people of Samarqand could get time to
prepare for the war. "Sudden attack on them without warning was
unlawful."

When
the people of Samarqand witnessed this state of affairs, they were convinced
that this was an unparallel case in the history of mankind .... the state
keeping its Commander-in-Chief and the armies under such strict discipline and
control, bound by lofty moral principles. And consequently they decided that
fighting against such a people would be futile. Rather, they came to regard it
as mercy and a blessing from God. Therefore, they agreed to live with the
Islamic army in Samarqand.

Just
imagine. An army conquers a city and enters it. The inhabitants of that city
complain to the victorious government and the judges of that government decide
the case against the victorious army, and order its externment, saying that they
could not live there without the consent of the people of that city. Can either
the ancient or modern history of mankind point out any war in which the fighting
men kept themselves so strictly bound by the moral code, and followed such lofty
principles of truth and justice, as demonstrated by the sons of our
civilization? In so far as my own knowledge is concerned, not one among the
nations of the world can be pointed out which demonstrated such lofty morals.

2.
Khalid & Abu Ubaidah

Islamic
armies conquer Damascus, Hams and the remaining towns of Syria and according to
the terms of the treaty they realize some amount of tax for the protection of
the life and property of the citizens and the defense of the country (634 A.D.,
within two years after Prophet Muhammad SAW). But later the Muslim leaders
received news that Heraclius had brought a big army which he was anxious to
bring against the Muslims. Therefore they decided to bring together their own
scattered armies in various conquered towns to concentrate at one point to face
the hordes of Heraclius with joint effort. So in keeping with this decision our
armies started leaving the towns of Hams, Damascus and other towns. Khalid in
Hams, Abu Ubaidah in Damascus and other generals in other towns addressed the
citizens thus:

"The
money or monies we had realized from you was meant for the protection of your
lives and properties, and also to defend your lands from outside aggression. But
we are sorry to inform you that we are parting with you and since we would not
be able to protect and defend you, we are returning the amounts of taxes
collected from you."

To
this the citizens said in reply:

"God
be with you and bring you back victorious. Your governance and your justice and
equity have enamored us, since the Romans in spite of being our coreligionists,
we have bitter experience of their oppression and tyranny. By God! If they had
been in your position they would not have returned a copper out of the taxes
collected from us. Rather, they would have taken away everything they could from
here belonging to us."

Even
in our so-called civilized period it is like that. If an army has to vacate a
station, it does not leave there anything that the enemy could utilize to
advantage. But is there a single example of the practice of the victorious
armies of Our civilization, in the entire history of mankind. By God! If I had
no faith in lofty values, and did not believe in their success or like the
politicians of the modern age, considered it necessary to keep morals and
principles dominated by the political interests, I would have said that the
leaders of our armies stuck to lofty values and love of principles due to their
unawareness and simplicity. But it is a fact that they were really true
Believers and did not like to say things they could not put into practice.

3.
Sheikh-al-Islam Ibn Taimiyah

When
the Tartars made a sudden assault on Syria and took countless men from Muslims,
Jews and Christians as prisoners, Sheikh-al-Islam Ibn-e-Taimiyah talked to the
Tartar Chief about the release of the prisoners. The Chief gave his assent for
the release of the Muslim prisoners but refused to do so in the case of the Jews
and the Christians. But Sheikh-al-Islam did not agree and insisted on the
release of the Jews and the Christians, who, he told him, were the Zimmis (Dhimmis)
of the Islamic state and were bound to them. They could not let even one
individual remain in captivity whether he belonged to their own community or
from those living with them under a covenant.

4.
Treatment of the Christian 'Heroes' of Crusades

Contrary
to this, who does not know What the Christian 'heroes' have been doing during
the crusades. During the middle ages (1095-1291) when these wars were thrust on
us, we fulfilled our contracts and they never let a chance of treachery slip by.
We habitually overlooked their Mischiefs but they always took revenge. We were
careful to Save human life as much as possible but they shed so much blood that
it ran into knee-deep pools. But these merciless brutes prided in their shameful
deeds, rejoiced and gloated over them.

When
these heroes of the crusades in their second onslaught reached
Ma’rah-al-No’man, the inmates were compelled to lay down arms. But before
Surrendering the town to the crusaders they made the responsible leaders of the
invaders guarantee the safety of their lives and property. But what actually
happened ? Those ferocious wild beasts on entering the city perpetrated such
crimes of cruelty, oppression and tyranny whose dreadfulness would make the
children old. Some English historians who participated in this war have stated
that the number of those slain was a hundred thousand souls, young and old, men
and women.

After
this the crusaders advanced towards Bait-al-Maqdis (Jerusalem) and besieged the
civilian population. Fully convinced that they would be vanquished, they took a
pledge from the supreme commander of the invading armies, Tankard, for the
protection of their lives and properties. He gave the citizens a white banner to
be hoisted over the Aqsa Mosque and advised them to enter that haven for their
safety. And they were assured of safety of everything, in every way .... And
then the invaders entered the town. But Ah! What a horrible shambles this sacred
city was converted into! Ah, what horrid crimes were perpetrated!

The
citizens of Bait-al-Maqdis (Jerusalem) took refuge in the Aqsa mosque, on which
the banner given to them by Tankard was hoisted according to his instructions.
This sacred mosque was packed to capacity with old men, women and children. And
then came the holocaust. Those who had blighted their word to protect their
lives and properties and given them the banner of peace, entered the holy mosque
and slaughtered all those frail and defenseless old men, children and women like
goats and sheep. The place of worship was filled with human blood and touched
the knees of the butchers. Thus slaughtering the citizens, they according to
their own mode of thinking, sanctified the city, washed as it was with blood.
The public highways and streets were littered with human skulls. Everywhere
amputated limbs and other organs and deformed bodies were lying with no one to
mourn or bury them. Men of our armies have stated that in the Aqsa mosque alone
seventy thousand people were slaughtered, among whom, apart from women and
children, there was a large number of learned men and devout persons. The
English historians too have not denied these shameful deeds of their
co-religionists. Rather, they state these feats of theirs with great pride.

5.
Salahuddin (Saladin) Ayyubi

Ninety
years after this dreadful slaughter and bloodshed, Salahuddin Ayyubi conquered
Baital-Maqdis (Jerusalem). Shall I tell you what he did with the inhabitants of
this sanctum? About a hundred thousand western people lived there. The conqueror
guaranteed security of life and property to them, and taking a small amount not
from every one but only from those who could easily pay it, and allowed them to
leave the town. They were also given respite for forty days for preparation
before departure. In this way eighty-four thousand persons left the town in
perfect safety, who went to 'Akka and other towns to their friends, relatives
and co-religionists. A large number of them were exempted from payment of
ransom, and his (Salahuddin's) brother Malik Adil paid the ransom for two
thousand persons from his own pocket and the treatment meted out to the women,
far from expecting it from a conqueror of today, it would be unimaginable to
him.

And
when the Christian patriarch wanted to leave the place, the Sultan permitted him
to do so. He had much wealth amassed through Churches, synagogues, Sakhrah, Aqsa,
and ceremonies on the occasion of Easter whose count is known to God alone. Some
counselors advised Salahuddin to confiscate his wealth, but the Sultan told them
that he could not go back upon his blighted word. He realized the same amount of
ransom from him also as he had realized from an ordinary person. But what caused
a fourfold increase in his honor and glory on the occasion of the conquest of
Baital-Maqdis (Jerusalem), was his mode of action in the process of evacuation
of the Christians of the sanctum. He provided guards for the safe transit of the
evacuees. The escorts had instructions to take them to the Christian habitations
of Saur and Saida to their co-religionists in perfect safety. And all this in
face of the entire Christian world standing in arms against the Muslims. Can any
one be sure of his being awake (and not dreaming) when hearing all this? But
this is not the whole story.

Let
us tell you the rest of it. There were several women who had paid ransom, came
to the Sultan and stated that their husbands, fathers and sons had either been
killed in the battle or were in captivity. They had no one to look after them,
nor were there any place where they could seek shelter. They were weeping and
wailing. Seeing them tearful, the tender-hearted Sultan burst into tears
himself. He ordered that after enquiry whoever of the husbands or sons or
fathers of these women were in captivity should be released. And those whose
guardians had been killed were given liberal compensation. These women where
ever they went praised the Sultan loudly. And when after scrutiny the prisoners
were released, they were also permitted to go to Saur, Akka and other places to
their co-religionists.

Let
us hear also what treatment was meted out to the Christian evacuees from
Baital-Maqdis to their brethren in nearby towns. Some of them went to Antioch
but the administrator of that city refused entry to them. And they went about
wandering in search of shelter and support, and finally it was the Muslims who
offered them refuge. One contingent went to Tripoli (Lebanon) which was ruled by
the Latin peoples. But even they did not allow them entry, and drove them away
from their premises after robbing them of all their worldly goods they had been
allowed to take with them by the Muslims.

Salahuddin's
benevolent treatment of the western Christians during the crusades prima facie
appears a tale. If the western writers had not been amazed at the noble nature
and lofty morals of this great hero of Islam, the world would have certainly
found room to accuse our historians of exaggeration. The westerners themselves
make mention of the event that when Salahuddin learnt of the illness of Richard,
the great and the most valiant general of the crusaders, he sent his personal
physician for his treatment and sent him also such fruits that were not easily
available at that time of the year and he could not procure them. This happened
while hostilities were on in full fury, and the armies of both the parties were
engaged in a life and death struggle. The western writers also state that a
woman approached the camp of Salahuddin, and wailing and weeping she complained
to him that her child had been snatched away from her by two Abyssinian
soldiers. Salahuddin himself was moved to tears by the pitiable condition of the
woman, and then and there appointed a military officer for enquiry who searched
out the woman's child and escorted it to her. And she was escorted to her camp
at his bidding. Dare any one say even in face of all this evidence that the
morality of our civilization relating to the fighting forces and wars is not
humane.

6.
Sultan Muhammad II

When
Sultan Muhammad II conquered Constantinople (1453) he entered the cathedral of
St. Sophia where all the priests had gathered to seek refuge, met them very
courteously and assured them that he would support every reasonable request from
them and they had no reason to be frightened. Those who had sought shelter there
out of fear, should rest assured and return to their homes with an easy
conscience. Later Muhammad II attended to the various problems of the Christians
and solved them. He gave them assurance that they could follow their personal
laws, religious obligations, and the customs and usages of their particular
churches. Not only that he authorized the priests to freely elect their
patriarch (Bishop). And they elected Jenadeus. On this occasion the Sultan also
ordered celebrations with great pomp and show which were usually made during the
Byzantine rule. He said to the patriarch that in his capacity of a patriarch he
was his friend at all times and at all places, and he should derive full benefit
of all those rights and privileges his predecessors had enjoyed. After that the
Sultan offered him a beautiful steed as a gift and detailed one of his body
guards for his protection, and high-ranking government officials escorted him to
his palace that the Sultan had got built for him. Then the Sultan proclaimed
that he had sanctioned the laws of the orthodox church and the patriarch shall
protect them. All the goods of archaeological interest and abandoned articles
picked up by the people on the occasion of the conquest, he purchased from them
and restored to the churches and other concerned institutions.

Sultan
Muhammad, the conqueror meted out this treatment to the Christians even when
there was no treaty arrived at between him and the Christians at the time of the
conquest of Constantinople which he might have been obliged to fulfil. This
privilege and support was kindly offered by him purely on grounds of his
generosity and benevolent nature. It was due to this kind treatment of his that
the people of Constantinople felt that under the new Islamic regime they were
living in greater peace and religious freedom than under their former Byzantine
rulers.

7.
The Uthmani Rulers

Similarly,
the Uthmani rulers continued with kind treatment of their Christian subjects in
the conquered neighboring lands, for example in the Bulgarian and the Greek
states, when such treatment was not meted out to them anywhere in Europe itself,
so much so that in Hungary and Transylvania the followers of Cliffon and the
unitarian Christians of Transylvania, instead or Submitting themselves to the
tyrannic rule of the extremely bigoted sect of Christians of the house of
Habsburg, they preferred to live under the Turkish authority and rule for a long
time. (Habsburg or Hapsburg: German family, named after the Castle of Habsburg
near Aaran in Switzerland, to which belonged the rulers of Austria and many of
the Holy Roman Emperors from 1273 to 1918. The Protestant sects of Silesia
longed to attain religious freedom under the Muslim rule.

8.
Fanaticism of the Christians Themselves Against the Christians

So
much about the generous treatment meted out by Sultan Muhammad, the conqueror,
to the Christians attached to the Cathedral of St. Sophia, and how benevolently
he granted rights to the Christians of Constantinople. Now let us also hear what
the European Christians did to their own brethren, the orthodox Christians when
they conquered Constantinople in 1204 A.D. And instead of my telling about it in
my own words, I would like to quote the statement of Pope Innocent III. He says:

"The
duty of the followers of Jesus and the supporters of his faith was to turn the
edges of their swords towards the greatest enemy of Christianity (i.e., Islam).
But it is a pity they shed the blood of the Christians themselves, which was
religiously forbidden to them. But they did not care at all for it, and shed
much blood. They neither respected the faith, nor discriminated between the
sexes nor had they any regard for age, or youth in this bloodshed. They
committed fornication and. adultery in broad daylight. The nuns, mothers of
children and virgins found themselves equally helpless before these lustful
creatures and the sensual beasts of this army, so to say, devoured (ravished)
them. These robbers and plunderers did not stop at robbing the king and other
aristocrats of their riches, but ravaged and plundered the lands and other
properties of the Churches. They' desecrated the churches also, robbing them of
the sacred portraits, crosses and holy relics."

And
the well-known historian Charl-Dale writes:

"This
army, intoxicated with power, entered the Cathedral of St. Sophia, destroyed the
holy books and trampled under foot the portraits of the martyrs. A corrupt woman
was occupying the chair of the patriarch, and she started singing loudly. All
traces of religious knowledge were effaced from the city, and the gold and
silver statues were destroyed to provide material for their gold and silver
coins."

And
the monks who were eye-witnesses to these painful scenes have put up their
evidence thus:

"The
fact is that the followers of Muhammad had never meted out the treatment to this
city which it met at the hands of the monks, the votaries of Christ."

Yes.
Certainly the Muslims did not do any such thing when they conquered this town
(Constantinople), as evidenced by the behavior of Sultan Muhammad Fateh. And the
Muslims, so long as they were believers, could not manifest narrow mindedness
and even approach such shameful deeds of religious bigotry, as were perpetrated
by the Roman Catholic followers of Christ against other followers of his,
subscribing to the orthodox Catholic faith.

9.
Treatment of Muslims in Andalusia (Spain)

I
would not like to take up in detail the story of the Muslim Conquerors of
Andalusia (Spain) and their generous treatment of the minorities of that
country, affectionate behavior and extreme regard for their feelings, nor would
compare it with the treatment the Muslims met at the hands of the Spaniards,
when they took over the last surviving Muslim state of Granada. And they did all
that in face of the treaty with Muslims comprising about sixty provisions, about
the protection of their faith, their mosques their honor and dignity and their
properties and so many other things. But they did not fulfil any of their
pledges, nor met any responsibility in their behalf. Rather, they did not desist
even from murder of innocent peoples and took possession of their properties.
Again, within thirty years of the fall of Granada, Europe declared in 1534 A.D.
that all the Mosques be converted into churches. So we find that within four
years of declaration the Muslims were totally wiped out of Spain. ...This is how
Christians of Spain made good their blighted word" .... and that was our
fulfilment of pledges!

Nowaday,
Islam is labeled as a ‘fundamentalist’ & ‘terrorist’ religion.

Those
term has brought about a distorted impact on the image of Islam.

The
impact of the terms is obvious from the following quotation from one of the most
influentialWestern
Encyclopedias under the title

Fundamentalist':

“The
term fundamentalist has ... been used to describe members of militant Islamic
groups."

Why
would the media use this specific word, so often with relation to Muslims? What
most of people don't realize is that the term Fundamentalist is actually derived
from a series of essays published from 1910 to 1915 under the title The
Fundamentals by British and American evangelists. The purpose of this 12-volume
collection was to determine which churches, according to the authors, held up to
genuine Christian doctrine and the ones that did not. Nevertheless the term
fundamentalist, in the Christian world, is synonymous with the 'Bible Thumpers'
and the tele evangelists. To apply the same terminology to Muslims is neither
fair nor valid.

Jewish
control media & corporations play an active role in giving a misinterpreted
view on Islam.

2.
PBS's "Jihad in America", which was produced by Israeli agent Steven
Emerson, claimed that all Islamic fundamentalists in America are potential
terrorists.

3.
Reader's Digest, a well known and respected international periodical, slandered
Islam and Muslims through a series of scandalous articles, including December
1993's "Terrorist Among Us," January 1994's "All in the Name of
Islam", and January 1995's "Holy War Heads our Way."

4.
Nike was hoping to profit from Islam. Their issue in 1997 of Air Nike, with the
Air written in a way resembling "Allah" in Arabic, was met with
disgust and protests from the Muslim communities. In America they were
eventually withdrawn, although in Australia they continue to be sold, and Nike
Australia has ignored repeated pleas for the removal of this highly offensive
product.

5.
In America, Anheuser-Busch's Budweiser beer TV commercial in December 1994
featured a female actress with "Bismillah Ar Rahman Ar Rahim" written
in Arabic across her chest on a revealing tank top outfit.

6.
The Washington Post articles stating that "Islamic Fundamentalism is an
aggressive revolutionary movement as militant and violent as the Bolshevik,
Fascist and Nazi movements of the past."

7.
A popular columnists scream out that there is an "urge to identify Islam as
an inherently anti-democratic force that is America's new global enemy now that
the cold war is over"

8.
Australian politician, Graeme Campbell declared that "I don't want the
Islamic people in my country, and certainly not fund. If that makes me a racist,
then I am a racist.5"

9.
Washington Post’s Columnist Stephen Rosefield had the audacity to say
"yes, Muslims were hastily held responsible. This is despicable and
dangerous. Yes, I admit that the first thought that came to my mind was also
that it was an act of Muslims. But our such a reaction is not the outcome of any
ignoble prejudices. This is not an issue of the picture of Islam. It is based on
facts [i.e. fault lies with the Muslims]. Muslims indulge in acts of terrorism,
consider it as legitimate and Muslim governments back terrorist activities. We
cannot close our eyes in the name of friendship and fairplay. Though it is now
known that the Americans too can be terrorists, [what is different with us is
that]our government is against them." [In subdued words, he admits]
"yes, our government should desist from acts of unlawful killings abroad
which are termed as acts of terrorism and which damage our moral
reputation." (daily The News, April 30, 1995)

10.
Any Muslim, who wants to practice his/her religion and expresses the pious
desire to live under the banner of Islam, is labelled a fundamentalist orextremist. Any Muslim man who walks down a busy street in London or Paris
(and Paris moreso) with a beard and a scarf on his head, is looked upon as being
a terrorist who's probably got an AK47 stashed somewhere on his person. Muslim
women who are veiled can't go anywhere in the Western world without beingtaunted as being oppressed or being mad (for covering up).

11.
A number of years ago, when the Oklahoma City bomb went off, a headline in one
of the newspapers, 'Today' [11], summed up this attitude. With a picture of a
fire fighter holding a dead child in his arms, the

headline
read: "In The Name of Islam"Time
has of course proven that this bigoted assumption was incorrect, as Timothy
McVeigh, a right wing radical now faces the death penalty for the crime.

Mad
?

No
word ?

Muslims
everywhere were enraged…

This
should be so when one is insulted.

Yet,
Muslims lacked power and capable leaders to stand against those denigrations
against Islam.

Muslims
longed for the loss golden era where justice prevails, where Islam rules with
peace, and its dignity preserved…

The
loss of the Islamic dignity has come about through the loss of the Khilafah, for
it was the Khalifah who threatened to send an army of men whose length would
reach between Baghdad and the doors of Rome if a single Muslim woman was not
freed from the hands of the Roman army.

Even
during the last days of Sultan Abdul Hameed's reign, he did not waver in his
defense of Islam. A play based on the writings of Voltaire was being staged in
France and Britain titled "Mohammad or Fanaticism", deriding the
character of the Prophet (s.a.w) through the Zayd/Zainab issue. When the
Khalifah was informed of the play, his ambassador to France warned the
government of the serious political repercussions which would follow if it was
continued. France promptly stopped the play, so the group went to England. When
the same warning was issued to England, the reply was that the tickets were sold
out, and banning the play would be an infringement on the freedom of its
citizens. So the following edict was issued by the Sultan, saying in no unclear
terms:

"I
will issue an edict to the Islamic Ummah declaring that Britain is attacking and
insulting our Prophet. I will declare Jihad..."

Upon
receiving this ultimatum, the claim for freedom of speech was forgotten, and the
performance quickly stopped.

In
the present days, the West has successfully portrayed Islam as the new
‘bogeyman’ of the world after the cold war.

Today,
Western systems are all geared towards fighting an endless battle against
everything Islam

stands
for.

Why
the fear?

Is
it justified in singling out Islam to be feared when according to a recent US
State Department report, Patterns of Global Terrorism, issued earlier this year,
272 terrorist events occurred in Europe, 92 in Latin America and 45 in the
Middle East. Sixty-two anti-US attacks occurred in Latin America last year, 21
in Europe and 6 in the Middle East. These numbers represent the terrorist trend
and not an anomaly, whereby the majority of perpetrators are not linked to the
Middle East or Islam. The Red Army Faction in Germany, the Basque Separatists in
Spain, the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, the Shining Path in Peru and the National
Liberation Army in Columbia are not viewed with the same horror as terrorist
groups of Muslim background.

Is
it justified in singling out Islam as a terror when on May 29, 1993, terrorists
torched a Muslim house in Solingen, Germany. Two women and two girls were burnt
alive, one jumped out of the window but succumbed to her injuries. This family
was settled in Germany for the last 20 years. This was not the first incident of
this kind (nor would it be the last!). In November, 1992, fire bombs were thrown
at two Muslim houses in Molln, a city near Hamburg. A woman and two girls were
burnt alive in their beds and nine persons, though with serious burns, survived.
On May 01, 1995, at a rally of presidential candidate Li Pan in Paris, three
‘skinheads’ killed a Moroccan Muslim, Ibrahim, by throwing him into the
River Sen and then themselves melted away in the crowd [Had a Christian house
been burnt in Pakistan, then...].

The
Americans as well as the Europeans, since long, have made themselves to believe
that they are so civilized and protectors of human rights that it is simply
impossible to commit any terrorist activities. Only ‘outsiders’ do it. It is
clear which ‘outsiders’ they mean.

For
them Islam is guilty until proven innocent.

The
Truth?

Islam…

The
very name Islam comes from the Arabic root word 'salama' which means peace.
Islam is a religion which is based upon achieving peace through the

submission
to the will of Allah. Thus, by this very simple linguistic definition, one can
ascertain as to what the nature of this religion is. If such a religion is based
on the notion of peace, then how is it that so many acts done by its adherents
are contrary to peace? The answer is simple. Such actions, if not sanctioned by
the religion, have no place with it. They are not Islamic and should not be
thought of as Islamic.

Human
Life…

Human
life is so precious according to Islam that "murdering an innocent person
is just like the massacre of the whole of humanity" (Surah al-Ma’idah).

A
Muslim is the one who protects others’ life, property and honor through his
deeds and speech (Sahih al-Bukhari).

This
applies equally to both Muslims and non-Muslims. Even if a polytheist (mushrik)
asks for protection during Wartime, he has to be provided protection and led to
his own place. (Surah al-Tauba).

Killing
of someone who is asking for peace and reconciliation, is forbidden. Setting a
prisoner free is desirable. There is no room for beating him while tied up.
Excesses against women, children, the old, the handicapped and the sick and
burning of the crops and the factories is not allowed even during the times of
war.

So
what we, as Muslims, could do?

As
for Muslims, our task is a hard and uphill battle. On an individual level, we
should always seek to maintain the highest caliber of character and morality. On
a society level, we should continue to provide pure and easily accessible
material on Islam, through any media channel available. If we see a wrong being
committed, our duty is to correct that wrong, no matter the consequences. With
the demise of the Khilafah, this role is now even harder. For non-Muslims, they
cannot see Islam and its vibrant system in action on a large scale. They cannot
compare its superiority with other models because it is not being implemented.
Only the return of the Khilafah could put a significant dent into the anti-Islam
movement, and raise awareness to the world community on what Islam stands for.

Islam
has always been a solution to humanity,
at the individual and group level. Islam guards the honour and rights of each
sex. It solidly prohibits any factor which could harm anyone is society, and its
laws don't change to accommodate any current trends, election prospects, or the
whims of the leaders. Racial discrimination is something the West has only come
to terms with in the late 60's, where in Australia, Aborigines were given the
right to vote in 1967. Yet Islam gave all nationalities equal rights.
Corruption, theft, deceit, fornication, sexual abuse, and disrespect to parents
and elders are all not tolerated. Islam forbids discrimination in judging, and
had a superior Justice system which the West is adopting progressively. No
person is given favours, there are no concessions available from any leader,
president, army official or police chief. Women have custody rights if it is
considered preferable for the child. A person is considered innocent before
proven guilty, and guilt needs to be firmly established.

Remember
that…

The
Believer is most superior in his understanding and his concept of the nature of
the world, for the belief in One God, in the form which has come to him from
Islam, is the most perfect form of understanding, the greatest truth. The
picture of the world which this Faith presents is far above the heaps of
concepts, beliefs and religions, and is not reached by any great philosophers,
ancient or modern, nor attained by idolaters or the followers of distorted
scriptures, nor approached by the base materialists. This picture is so bright,
clear, beautiful and balanced that the glory of the Islamic belief shines forth
as never before. And without doubt those who have grasped this knowledge are
superior to all others.